Talk:Buzz cut

Archives

Proposed merge with Induction cut

The induction cut appears to be a specific use case of the buzz cut. Lord Belbury (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, on the grounds that while it is certainly a subset of buzz cut it may be independently notable, just as other types of buzz cut: butch cut, crew cut, flattop, and Ivy League. Klbrain (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, given the uncontested objection. Klbrain (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed layout changes

User:Sportsfan 1234 disagreed with some of my edits and wanted them taken to the talk page. Those disputed edits are:

Using an in-focus headshot of Tom Hardy for the lead instead of a blurry full-length photo of David Perron.
Saying that styles include X, Y and Z instead of or.
Putting a naval academy photo next to a paragraph that talks about military haircuits. (MOS:IMGLOC says that images "should generally be placed in the most relevant article section".)
Using a default gallery format rather than setting it to 250x250.

What are the objections here? --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The headshot is not a clear photo imo, the David Perron photo is a better example of the subject.

What do you mean by? * Saying that styles include X, Y and Z instead of or.

I have no objection to point 3, except I think all other photos should be together

The gallery at your suggested size is way too small Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive images in gallery in contravention of WP:GALLERY

According to policy, a gallery should "collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." Having twelve similar photos of men with buzz cuts is not useful. Ideally, the article would have one high-quality photo in the lede; if a gallery is necessary, it should illustrate some sort of contrast; i.e., genders, ages, ethnicities, etc. Otherwise, this starts to look like a "list of people with buzz cuts" article, which also directly violates WP:GALLERY. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking off my 3O hat, let me just weigh in with this. The gallery here is ridiculous and is the tail wagging the article dog. Though I think it's a somewhat close call on the question of whether WP:GALLERY is violated, I think that it does violate it. But even if it does not, it does not improve the article and it should be removed. That's my !vote towards a consensus to resolve the question of whether it ought to stay or go. If it does stay, and the permissions on those photos allow derivative works, those images should be cut down so that it just shows the haircut without anything more and the names or identification of the individuals wearing the haircut should be eliminated; it would then illustrate just variations on the haircut - which is the importance, if any, of the gallery for this article - without implying importance due to the identity of the wearer (analogous to the idea of reliability not being inherited). If some importance is to be ascribed to the identity of the wearer, perhaps the advocate for the gallery could start a fork article, "People who wear buzz cut haircuts". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size of this article, I don't think a gallery is warranted at all. I've amended it to two photos; I don't see how those two photos fail to convey to the reader what a buzz cut looks like. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the term accompanies multiple styles which the gallery conveyed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only different in styles I could see in that gallery was (1) Wrestler Cody Rhodes had a slightly longer buzzcut and (2) Brian Yang (badminton) has bangs with a buzz cut. The former is a bit blurry, and the latter is even blurrier and an awful crop. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Perron photo

Had forgotten that I'd had the same discussion with @Sportsfan 1234 back in 2020 on this talk page, when replacing the David Perron photo with a sharper photo of someone else. I did it again with a different photo and got reverted again.

What makes this uncropped and slightly blurry 568px-wide photo of David Perron holding a sharpie such a good lead image, in your view? Is he very well known for having a buzz cut, or something? There are 60 other photos to choose from at Commons:Category:Buzz cut, is this really the best one? Belbury (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is two photos, both show uniform all around cuts as per the lead. I think both should stay. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your view that the David Perron photo is illustrating some aspect of the buzz cut that the James McEvoy photo isn't? Belbury (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are both there no? They both show different lengths of a buzz cut Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you felt we needed both, instead of just one photo. Length is a fair thing to illustrate. So any image of a person with that length of cut would suffice, there's nothing else significant about this particular photo of Perron? Belbury (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third photo in the article, File:Male buzzcut.jpg, already shows a different length of buzz cut, so I think we can lose the Perron photo here. Belbury (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The first two images are of different lengths. We can move Perron to the "second photo" as a compromise. Sorry I didn't see you commented here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Perron photo is a better choice than File:Male buzzcut.jpg, for the article's second image? The article text has a paragraph about military buzz cuts, so it seems useful to have an image that specifically illustrates that. Belbury (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can list both, but David Perron has an article on Wikipedia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: Thanks for responding, but that wasn't the question. Why do you think the Perron photo is a better choice than the Navy buzzcut, for the article's second image?

The discussion above from 2021 was that two photos were enough from the article. Belbury (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its better as its a pic of a subject with an article on Wikipedia. A discussion from 2021 doesn't need to be the end. Take a look at crewcut for example. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: Wikilinks can be useful, but a photo of a Navy crew cut has much more MOS:PERTINENCE to an article about a cut which is commonly given to military recruits. Belbury (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a few IP addresses disagree with your edits. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal IPs that have been adding File:Es-Pachydermata-article.ogg and the phrase "yo conoci un cielo sin sol un hombre sin suelo un rio de sal y barco abandonado en el desierto" to the article? They're just restoring an already-vandalised June 2024 version of this page, I wouldn't say that this tells us anything. Belbury (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

was going of "Esta foto es mejor" which loosley translates to "this photo is better". I have added it back to the aritcle without the Spanish text Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your stated arguments for including the Perron photo in the article in the lead or body, over two threads, are:

It's "a better example" than the photo of Tom Hardy and should replace it
It's "a better photo" than the one of James McEvoy and should replace it
It shows a different cut length to the McEvoy picture so should be displayed alongside as a comparison
It should replace the Naval Academy photo because Perron has a Wikipedia article and the anonymous midshipman doesn't
The recurring IP vandal who thinks that the article should open with a Spanish-language audio clip about elephants and a short poem about rivers and boats in the desert said that they liked it

In six months you still haven't managed to say why you believe that the blurry Perron image is better than the many other, higher resolution, images of actors and sportspeople in Commons:Category:Buzz cut.

I'll request a WP:3O. Belbury (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

@Belbury and Sportsfan 1234:Hello; thanks for requesting a third opinion. As a reminder, the third opinion process is neither mandatory nor binding. This is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal process, enabling two editors involved in a current dispute to seek advice from an uninvolved third party.
In my opinion the David Perron photo doesn't add much to the article. It is a low quality photo with focus issues and seemingly a piece of dust between the lens and the subject, and it replicates what the other images provide. The image of a sailor does a good job illustrating the institutional connections of this haircut. I support removing the David Perron photo and keeping the photo of James McAvoy and the sailor. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]